Calvin L. Merritte v. C/O Brace, Sgt. Harris, Rodney Braker, Latoya Hughes, Anthony Wills, Ms. Buettner, Major Roland, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, Jane Doe 2, J.B. Pritzker, Jane or John Doe

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois conducts preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of Calvin L. Merritte’s First Amended Complaint alleging constitutional violations arising from events at Menard Correctional Center. The court allows claims concerning alleged sexual and physical assault, retaliation, and failure to intervene to proceed against certain defendants, while dismissing other claims and defendants without prejudice. The court also denies preliminary injunctive relief concerning alleged ongoing retaliation because those allegations are outside the scope of the screened claims.

Holdings

1. A bare false accusation, without allegations linking the accusing officer to a due process violation or other constitutional deprivation, does not state a § 1983 claim.
2. Threatening to charge a prisoner with assault because he refused to provide false information and attempted to report misconduct plausibly states a First Amendment retaliation claim at the screening stage.
3. Allegations that a restrained prisoner was thrown to the floor, subjected to an unwarranted sexual intrusion, punched, and threatened with further violence for complaining about misconduct plausibly state excessive-force and retaliation claims.
4. Officials may be liable for failure to intervene when they knew of an ongoing constitutional violation and had a realistic opportunity to prevent or mitigate it, but they have no constitutional duty merely to investigate, report, or correct misconduct after it has ended.
5. Threats or intimidation intended to deter a prisoner from reporting constitutional misconduct plausibly state a First Amendment retaliation claim.
6. Being denied hygiene supplies, clothing, bedding, and legal materials for one day, as alleged here, does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
7. A prisoner must plausibly allege both an objectively serious medical condition and that each defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner's health; a general allegation that nonmedical officers withheld medication for approximately 24 hours was insufficient here.
8. HIPAA, the Illinois Medical Patient Rights Act, and the Managed Care Reform and Patient's Rights Act do not provide the private rights of action asserted by Merritte.
9. Officials who learned of an assault only after it occurred cannot be liable for failing to intervene in that completed assault, and a failure-to-intervene claim requires an underlying constitutional violation connected to the defendants' inaction.
10. Preliminary injunctive relief is unavailable for allegations unrelated to the claims at issue in the underlying action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the First Amended Complaint stated a claim under § 1915A against the defendants for false accusation, retaliation, excessive force and sexual assault, failure to intervene, conditions of confinement, denial of medical care, disclosure of mental-health information, and supervisory inaction.
2. Whether the alleged conduct by Jane Doe 1 in falsely accusing Merritte of assault stated a constitutional claim.
3. Whether threats made in response to Merritte's efforts to report misconduct plausibly stated First Amendment retaliation claims.
4. Whether the allegations against Harris and Braker plausibly stated failure-to-intervene claims.
5. Whether the allegations concerning medication, temporary deprivation of hygiene supplies and bedding, and disclosure of mental-health information stated constitutional or statutory claims.
6. Whether Merritte was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief concerning alleged retaliation occurring after the events underlying the complaint.

Disposition

other